[Case Information] This case is a decision that concluded with the cancellation of the first-instance decision, concerning the issue of “release from position (abolition of General Manager of Administration).” Decision Committee: National Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae24 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-01 · Case Type: First-instance Decision Cancelled Key Issue Summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer conducted an organizational restructuring, reducing facility management personnel from six to three and, in the process, abolishing the position of General Manager of Administration and releasing the employee from that position. The employee, claiming that the release from position caused disadvantages such as the discontinuation of the position allowance, alleged unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy. Dissatisfied with the first-instance decision, the employee then filed for re‑examination with the National Labor Relations Commission. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether the release from position, accompanied by the abolition of the General Manager of Administration position, constitutes disciplinary action amounting to unfair dismissal, or whether it is a legitimate personnel measure based on business necessity. More specifically, the key questions are whether business and operational needs—such as the reduction of facility management personnel and organizational streamlining—can be recognized, and whether the resulting disadvantages, including the discontinuation of the position allowance, go significantly beyond the level of hardship that an employee is ordinarily expected to bear. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that the employer abolished the General Manager of Administration position itself in the course of organizational restructuring; that there was an operational need for personnel reallocation, such as reducing facility management personnel from six to three and unifying the chain of command; and that the release from position was not a sanction for past misconduct but a personnel measure accompanying the restructuring. Accordingly, the panel held that the release from position did not constitute disciplinary action against the employee, but rather an adjustment of position as a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative. Although the employee suffered economic disadvantage in the form of discontinued position allowance, this was regarded as a consequence of the abolition of the position itself due to organizational restructuring. The panel found it difficult to view this as a case where the degree of hardship in living conditions went significantly beyond the level ordinarily to be endured, as discussed in case law on transfers and reassignments. The dismissal measure in this case was therefore held not to be unfair dismissal in the form of disciplinary dismissal or redundancy dismissal, but a legitimate exercise of managerial prerogative within the scope of business necessity. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, measures such as release from duties, removal from post, or release from position do not all necessarily constitute disciplinary action. It is important to distinguish and contest whether the measure is a personnel action accompanying organizational restructuring and personnel reallocation, or a sanction for past misconduct. In addition, to argue hardship in living conditions, it is necessary to go beyond mere reduction of allowances and adopt a strategy to prove specific disadvantages that significantly exceed the ordinarily tolerable range across the board, including work content, working environment, career development, and promotion opportunities. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to retain objective materials that can demonstrate that the release from position or adjustment of position is a personnel measure arising from organizational restructuring rather than disciplinary action. Such materials include revised organizational charts, plans for personnel reduction and streamlining, and documentation of the need to reorganize the chain of command. Furthermore, to avoid the measure being misunderstood as a disadvantage targeting a specific employee, the employer should ensure the reasonableness of the criteria for selecting personnel. Where changes in the remuneration system, such as position allowances, are unavoidable, the reasons and criteria should be clearly explained and shared in advance. This National Labor Relations Commission decision illustrates that personnel management measures such as release from position can also be subject to review as “unfair dismissal” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, but that the determination is made by comprehensively considering business necessity, the degree of hardship in living conditions, and whether the measure is disciplinary in nature. To prepare for similar disputes, both employees and employers should accurately understand and respond to the legal principles of “the legal nature of release from duties/release from position” and “business necessity vs. hardship in living conditions.” 2. Matters Decided (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Whether the Release from Position Constitutes Disciplinary Action and Whether Business Necessity Exists It is reasonable to view the release from position not as disciplinary action against the employee, but as a personnel measure resulting from the abolition of the General Manager of Administration position pursuant to an organizational restructuring decision, in which the employer is accorded considerable discretion within the scope of business necessity. The release from position arose from organizational restructuring aimed at streamlining the organization and unifying the chain of command following the reduction of facility management personnel (from six to three), and thus there was business necessity for the measure. (b) Degree of Hardship in Living Conditions Resulting from the Release from Position The fact that the employer ceased paying the position allowance to the employee following the release from position resulted from organizational restructuring based on business necessity, and… 3. Gist of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Whether the Release from Position Constitutes Disciplinary Action and Whether Business Necessity Exists It is reasonable to view the release from position not as disciplinary action against the employee, but as a personnel measure resulting from the abolition of the General Manager of Administration position pursuant to an organizational restructuring decision, in which the employer is accorded considerable discretion within the scope of business necessity. The release from position arose from organizational restructuring aimed at streamlining the organization and unifying the chain of command following the reduction of facility management personnel (from six to three), and thus there was business necessity for the measure. (b) Degree of Hardship in Living Conditions Resulting from the Release from Position The fact that the employer ceased paying the position allowance to the employee following the release from position resulted from organizational restructuring based on business necessity, and… / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Transfer (Replacement of Union Operations Manager)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Electronic Processing of Medical Fee Refunds)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, release from position (abolition of General Manager of Administration), performance evaluation · poor performance, others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm ※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Transfer (Replacement of Union Operations Manager)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to release from position (abolition of General Manager of Administration) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Release from Position (Abolition of General Manager of Administration)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article